N J Gross1, D Böhringer2, P Maier2, T Reinhard2. 1. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Deutschland. nikolai.gross@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compared the postoperative results and patient satisfaction between penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in patients who underwent PK in one eye and DSAEK in the other eye. METHODS: A total of 15 patients were identified from the corneal database register and the medical charts were analyzed for best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometric astigmatism, endothelial cell density and postoperative complications. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by a standardized interview. RESULTS: Median follow-up time for PK was 55 months and 18 months for DSAEK (p < 0.01). Median BCVA in PK was 0.8 and 0.5 in DSAEK (p = 0.01) at the end of follow-up. Median keratometric astigmatism was 3.1 diopters after PK and 1.9 diopters after DSAEK (p = 0.2). Median endothelial cell density was 831 cells/mm(2) after PK and 860 cells/mm(2) after DSAEK (p = 0.63). For the interventions 57 % of the patients preferred PK, 36 % preferred DSAEK and 7 % were undecided. Patients assigned the better performing eye to the PK side in 64 % and in 29 % to the DSAEK side and 7 % perceived equal visual performance in both eyes. CONCLUSION: The results leave doubt about the superiority of DSAEK compared to PK; however, exceptionally good refractive results of the 15 PK eyes analyzed and significantly longer follow-up times after PK could be the reason for the unexpectedly high patient preference for PK.
BACKGROUND: This study compared the postoperative results and patient satisfaction between penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in patients who underwent PK in one eye and DSAEK in the other eye. METHODS: A total of 15 patients were identified from the corneal database register and the medical charts were analyzed for best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometric astigmatism, endothelial cell density and postoperative complications. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by a standardized interview. RESULTS: Median follow-up time for PK was 55 months and 18 months for DSAEK (p < 0.01). Median BCVA in PK was 0.8 and 0.5 in DSAEK (p = 0.01) at the end of follow-up. Median keratometric astigmatism was 3.1 diopters after PK and 1.9 diopters after DSAEK (p = 0.2). Median endothelial cell density was 831 cells/mm(2) after PK and 860 cells/mm(2) after DSAEK (p = 0.63). For the interventions 57 % of the patients preferred PK, 36 % preferred DSAEK and 7 % were undecided. Patients assigned the better performing eye to the PK side in 64 % and in 29 % to the DSAEK side and 7 % perceived equal visual performance in both eyes. CONCLUSION: The results leave doubt about the superiority of DSAEK compared to PK; however, exceptionally good refractive results of the 15 PK eyes analyzed and significantly longer follow-up times after PK could be the reason for the unexpectedly high patient preference for PK.
Authors: Irit Bahar; Igor Kaiserman; Eliya Levinger; Wiwan Sansanayudh; Allan R Slomovic; David S Rootman Journal: Cornea Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.651